Talk:Sesamestreet.com
Attention Perhaps someone who actually visited the site when it was still just sesamestreet.com could give some input into this article? The inclusion comes from this shirt, but being that I came across it in a roundabout manner, I never actually saw the site itself. --Cantus Rock 17:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC) :This has been here for nearly two months. To be quite honest, I'm not sure if anyone saw the site in its original incarnation. When someone with that info arrives, it can be expanded, but 'til then, it seems to me this should be merged as a note on Sesameworkshop.org. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC) ::No way. Just because people who know the information haven't visited the wiki doesn't mean that the information isn't out there, which is why I think its so wrong to pull talk (or attention) boxes if a question has exceeded this imposed lifespan that's set here -- whats up with that? The question is still valid, even if the right person hasn't found it yet. ::I know for a fact that there was original content on the site and it was accessed by users internationally. Merging this with Sesameworkshop.org wouldn't be right, and it'd be kinda demeaning to the efforts of the people who worked on the site (which I believe went through a number of changes in the transition from CTW to Sesame Workshop). --Cantus Rock 19:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC) :::The point to pulling talk boxes is, if nobody knows, nobody knows. We'll get to it eventually, but there's no point in leaving it there. Yes, the question is still valid, and in the hypothetical instance that a person with such specialized knowledge comes along, they're just as likely to find the article without the talk tag. In the case of attention boxes, I haven't yanked it yet, you notice, I was just wondering. We break out articles into their own pages all the time, when there's enough content to support it; heck, CTW and Sesame Workshop are all one article right now, since not enough research has yet been done or incoporated regarding the whole history, so a simgle sentence page on this website just sort of looked odd to me. Sure, it's possible at some point that someone who knows it may, in two weeks or five months or four years, visit here, but I'm not sure it needs its own page on the off chance. Still, if it means that much to you, so be it. There's no harm done by its exitance, and I admit detailing webpage content isn't exactly my own strongest interest to begin with. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC) ::::Matt, I think the creation of the Attention tag happened just a little bit before you joined us, and now that I look at it, the description on the Attention category page isn't explicit enough. ::::The point of the Attention tag is to draw attention to articles that new contributors can help out with -- stuff that the longtime editors just haven't gotten around to working on. The recent work on Rowlf the Dog is a perfect example -- that information was out there, and pretty easy to access, but nobody had bothered to put it all together yet. ::::The Attention tag is there to encourage newer contributors to find things that they can help with, using stuff that they can currently find on the web, on other wiki pages, or in their own video collections. If a new contributor looks at this page, they probably would be disheartened by it -- there's no way for them to help. This is a page for a specialist, somebody with really detailed and specific knowledge. So this isn't an appropriate Attention page. ::::Like I said, I/we should probably give some attention to the description on the Attention category page... -- Danny (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC) :::::Is it really something that needs a specialist? Really, it only needs a few people who remember accessing the site well enough to give some details to it (at least in this early stage). I'd say if a new user saw the tag, saw there was nothing there and added maybe a couple of basic lines of info to get the ball rolling, that'd be a start. Articles like these evolve. Like the Jim Henson Memorial Prize in Puppetry article; it started out as something very abstract since no one knew anything about it, but has now started on the evolutionary process of becoming a fleshed article. I've been doing research on this and can probably add some more detail myself once I sort the information out, but either way I'd still say the attention tag should stay and that since there was unique content on the page, that it doesn't deserve the redirect. :::::The "if nobody knows, nobody knows" mentality is backwards thinking in a project like the wiki. Whats the difference how long it takes to get the questions answered? Whats the difference of having unanswered questions on the wiki in general? Unanswered questions are locked doors; if it takes 3 days, 3 months, or 3 years to open the door, the point is that it has been open, and you now get to see whats on the other side. But if the person with the key doesn't know where the door is, everyone takes a loss. There is a large assumption that people with the info will automatically gravitate to the articles they know about: also not good. Given the ever-growing number of pages on the wiki, in a way, when these articles are not specifically pointed out somehow, the viewer may not know they know the desired information. Hardcore fans will dig through everything like we do and try to add anything we can - the passive fans (who very well might know what is needed) aren't going to spend quantities of time digging through the large category index, and might not think to type in "sesamestreet.com" into the search function. The tags are great, because they centralize all of these loose ends which are spread out in different places all over the wiki. Taking them down just because the right person hasn't come along creates more work for that person (and for you admins too). --Cantus Rock 04:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC) ::::::I totally agree that unanswered questions are what the wiki is all about -- and if you think there's more information that can be added to this page, then that's reason enough for it to stay. You're right, it's really exciting when people work together, and a page evolves from a little stub into a full-fledged article. ::::::The difference that we're talking about is just where this question should be listed. Attention is for easy questions that almost anyone can work on. Still Stumping is a place for questions that are harder to reach. I completely agree that somebody will be able to add more to this page -- but the Attention tag is for pages that anybody can add to. ::::::So I added this page to the list on Still Stumping. That page was sort of thrown together a little while ago, and I think it could use a little fleshing out. Matt, if you want to draw more attention to these kinds of questions, it might help to beef up that page a bit, and add more text for each of the questions. Right now, it's just a list, but there could be an explanation for each item about what kind of information we need. -- Danny (talk) 11:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC) :::::::Ditto what Danny said. Also, more specifics help. Obviously this is an obscure topic, but even a general date range for how long the original website was up, say the date of the T-shirt, would help. Otherwise, there's no place to start unless we're going back to the specialist. And yeah, I should have mentioned Still Stumping earlier. Way back, Danny, Scott, and I had this exact same discussion back in July, over whether to keep items like Big Bird Meets the Orchestra or Shivers the Penguin in attention permanently. There's answers out there, somewhere, but it's not something one can Google or check videos or even do print research to find the answer to. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC) ::::::::Ah, I see now. There should be a Still Stumping tag too...something smaller, but along the same lines as the attention tag. That way the articles on that list can be categorized as such, thus reaching the same outcome as the attn tag. It'd be like the Attention tag for regulars, hah. ::::::::And yeah this specific article has been something I've been getting like little stray pieces of information about; kinda things that aren't even really sentences, just small tidbits of fact. So once I firm everything up I'll try to get some more onto this page. --Cantus Rock 17:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC) :::::::::Well, looks like Brad just took care of that for you! I like it, a discreet tag, and it categorizes the talk pages, which in this case is really what we'd want people to see first anyway, to show what is or isn't already known about the topic, or what specific confusion lays (since in some cases, it's only one part of a larger article where the "stumper" lies). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC) ::::::::::Yeah, I just made one. I put them on the talk pages to 1) bring attention to the discussion and issue at hand first (which Andrew pointed out is really important with these kinds of questions/problems). And 2) not have a big bright tag on the top of a main article page for months or years (or forever) that implies "Hey! This Article Has a Problem". Many times the "still stumping" things are a "it would be really nice to know or have this resolved" unlike "attention" which is a "we should know or have this resolved". -- Brad D. (talk) 18:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC) :::::::::::Brad, that's a great solution -- elegant and very helpful. I agree about putting the tag on the talk page, so it doesn't clutter the article page forever. -- Danny (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC) ::::::::::::Awesome. :) --Cantus Rock 22:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)